DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/7/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 7 “one or more a recess(es)” should read “one or more [[a]] recess(es)”
In line 10 “be retained by within” should read “be retained by” or “be retained within”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9, 11-12, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn (US 5070645) in view of Gschwend (CH 287162) and Jordan et al. (GB 2308976).
Regarding Claim 1, Vaughn discloses a reinforced flowerpot cover comprising:
a bag (liner 24, cover 28) including having a base defining an interior surface, an exterior surface, and a periphery (Figures 2 and 4), a sidewall extending upwardly from the periphery and terminating at a cuff defining a top opening (hem 26 Figure 2); and
an insert assembly including a bottom insert defining an outer edge that is substantially similar to the periphery of the base (base 16; Figures 1 and 2) and a vertical insert (stays 22),
wherein the top cuff includes one or more pockets (hem 26, gaps between stitching where stays 22 go Figures 2 and 4),
wherein the vertical insert includes a top end sized and shaped to insert into and be retained within one of the one or more pockets (hem 26, gaps between stitching where stays 22 go Figures 2 and 4) when engaged with and supported by the interior surface of the bag on at least one side (so long as the bag and insert are touching- Figure 2- then they are supporting one another through frictional forces),
wherein the insert assembly is positioned within the bag, facilitating a rigid structure to keep the bag standing upright with the top opening stretched fully open (Figures 2 and 4).
Vaughn fails to disclose wherein the outer edge of the bottom insert defines one or more a recess(es) set back from said outer edge creating one or more notches, wherein the vertical insert includes a bottom end sized and shaped to insert into and be retained by within one of the one or more notches, wherein the insert assembly is removably positioned within the bag, and wherein the bottom insert and the vertical insert are separate, individual components.
However, Gschwend teaches a similar plant pot cover with an outer cover (fabric 4) wherein the outer edge of the bottom insert (base 1) defines one or more a recess(es) set back from said outer edge creating one or more notches (shown in annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the vertical insert (uprights 2) includes a bottom end sized and shaped to insert into and be retained by within one of the one or more notches (Figure 1), and wherein the bottom insert and the vertical insert are separate, individual components (“To make the planter cover, first we make the frame by gluing together the base 1, the uprights 2” Translation Page 2 Paragraph 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insert of Vaughn, with the notches and separability of Gschwend, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier storage during shipping and transportation of the cover, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Additionally, Jordan teaches a similar flowerpot cover, wherein the top cuff includes one or more pockets (retaining means 25), wherein the vertical insert (walls of pot 5) includes a top end sized and shaped to insert into and be retained within one of the one or more pockets (Figures 1-3), wherein the insert assembly is removably positioned within the bag (Abstract, Figure 1) facilitating a rigid structure to keep the bag standing upright with the top opening stretched fully open (Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pockets of Vaughn, with the insert assembly being removable from the pockets as taught by Jordan, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier disassembly for storage and shipping of the cover, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding Claim 9, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 1. Vaughn further discloses the reinforced flowerpot cover, wherein the bottom insert defines an opening (base 16 of frame 12 Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 1. Vaughn further discloses the reinforced flowerpot cover, wherein the outer edge of the bottom insert defines a square shape (Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 1. Vaughn further discloses the reinforced flowerpot cover, wherein the outer edge of the bottom insert defines a circle shape (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 15, Vaughn discloses a reinforced flowerpot cover comprising:
a bag (liner 24, cover 28) having a base defining an interior surface, an exterior surface, and a periphery (Figures 2 and 4), a sidewall extending upwardly from the periphery and terminating at a top cuff defining a top opening (hem 26 Figure 2) and one or more pockets defining a dimension (hem 26, gaps between stitching where stays 22 go Figures 2 and 4); and
an insert assembly including a bottom insert defining an outer edge that is substantially similar to the periphery of the base (base 16; Figures 1 and 2) and a vertical insert (stays 22),
wherein the insert assembly is positioned within the bag, facilitating a rigid structure to keep the bag standing upright with the top opening stretched fully open (Figures 2 and 4), and
wherein the vertical insert includes a top end defining a width no larger than the dimension of the pocket (hem 26, gaps between stitching where stays 22 go Figures 2 and 4; stays are not larger than gaps in stitching).
Vaughn fails to disclose wherein the outer edge of the bottom insert defined one or more recess(es) set back from said outer edge creating one or more notches, wherein the vertical insert includes a bottom end sized and shaped to insert into and be retained within one of the one or more notches , wherein the insert assembly is removably positioned within the bag.
However, Gschwend teaches a similar plant pot cover with an outer cover (fabric 4) wherein the outer edge of the bottom insert (base 1) defines one or more a recess(es) set back from said outer edge creating one or more notches (shown in annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the vertical insert (uprights 2) includes a bottom end sized and shaped to insert into and be retained by within one of the one or more notches (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insert of Vaughn, with the notches and separability of Gschwend, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier storage during shipping and transportation of the cover, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Additionally, Jordan teaches a similar flowerpot cover comprising one or more pockets defining a dimension (pockets 25; Figure 1), wherein the insert assembly (walls of pot 5) is removably positioned within the bag (Abstract, Figure 1) facilitating a rigid structure to keep the bag standing upright with the top opening stretched fully open (Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pockets of Vaughn, with the insert assembly being removable from the pockets as taught by Jordan, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier disassembly for storage and shipping of the cover, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding Claim 18, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 15.
Vaughn fails to disclose the reinforced flowerpot cover, wherein the vertical insert and the bottom insert are individual, separate components.
However, Gschwend teaches a similar reinforced pot cover wherein the vertical insert and the bottom insert are individual, separate components (“To make the planter cover, first we make the frame by gluing together the base 1, the uprights 2” Translation Page 2 Paragraph 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insert of Vaughn, with the individual parts of Gschwend, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier storage during shipping and transportation of the cover, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding Claim 20, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 15.
Vaughn fails to disclose the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 15, wherein an exterior surface of the sidewall and the exterior surface of the base include an aesthetic element.
However, Gschwend teaches a similar reinforced pot cover wherein an exterior surface of the sidewall and the exterior surface of the base includes an aesthetic element (“The lining could consist of parchment, for example painted parchment or its imitations.” Page 2 Paragraph 3 of translation ).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the exterior surface of Vaughn, with the aesthetic element of Gschwend, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help make the cover more aesthetically pleasing for the user.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn in view of Gschwend, and Jordan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weder (US 2005/0178060).
Regarding Claim 6, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 1.
Vaughn fails to disclose the reinforced flowerpot cover, wherein the base includes a drain hole.
However, Weder ‘060 teaches a similar flowerpot cover wherein the base includes a drain hole (“The bottom may further have at least one drain opening therein,” Paragraph [0075]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the base of Vaughn, with the drain hole of Weder ‘060, with reasonable expectations of success, in order to help ensure the plant has proper drainage to help prevent root rot.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn in view of Gschwend, Jordan and Weder as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (WO 2010/104590).
Regarding Claim 7, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 6.
Vaughn fails to disclose the reinforced flowerpot cover, wherein the drain hole is reinforced with a grommet.
However, Nelson teaches a plant container wherein the drain hole (apertures 912; Figures 10A and12) is reinforced with a grommet (“The apertures 912 are aligned such that a grommet, rivet, eyelet or other fastener 914 (Figs. 10A and 10C) can be inserted and secured therethrough to provide further reinforcing” Page 14 lines 17-19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the pot of Vaughn, with the grommet reinforced hole of Nelson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant receives proper drainage, while helping maintain the structure and durability of the container.
Regarding Claim 8, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 1.
Vaughn fails to disclose wherein the bag is formed of a polyester material.
However, Nelson teaches a plant container wherein the bag (container 100 with material 102) is formed of a polyester material (“the breathable material 102 is a synthetic polymer, such as polypropylene, polyester, polyethylene and polyamides.” Page 9 lines 15-16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bag of Vaughn, to be polyester as taught by Nelson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the cover is durable while remaining cost effective, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn in view of Gschwend and Jordan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weder (US 4300312).
Regarding Claim 10, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 1.
Vaughn fails to disclose the reinforced flowerpot cover, wherein the vertical insert defines a trapezoidal shape.
However, Weder ‘312 teaches a similar reinforced plant cover wherein the vertical insert defines a trapezoidal shape (Fingers 30; Figures 1 and 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vertical inserts of Vaughn, to be trapezoidal in shape as taught by Weder ‘312, with reasonable expectations of success, in order to help increase the stability of the insert.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn in view of Gschwend and Jordan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patten (US 1087702).
Regarding Claim 13, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 1. Vaughn further discloses the reinforced flowerpot cover, wherein the top cuff is formed with a lower stitching sewn at a bottom edge (“the edges are folded over the mouth 14 and affixed such as by stitching to form a hem 26.” Col. 2 lines 1-3; Figure 2).
Vaughn fails to disclose wherein the top cuff is formed with an upper stitching sewn at a top edge.
However, Patten teaches a similar flowerpot cover wherein the top cuff is formed with an upper stitching sewn at a top edge (“the stays terminate adjacent to the pocket 6,” Page 2 lines 25-28 “held in place by pockets 3 stitched, or otherwise secured to the body blank” Page 1 lines 82-85, stiches shown above stays in Figure 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the top cuff of Vaughn, with the upper stitching as taught by Patten, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the security of the inserts within the pockets, as well as increase the overall stability of the cover.
Regarding Claim 14, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 13.
Vaughn fails to disclose the reinforced flowerpot cover, wherein the upper stitching is sewn around the entire top edge.
However, Patten teaches wherein the upper stitching is sewn around the entire top edge (Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the top cuff of Vaughn, with the upper stitching as taught by Patten, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the security of the inserts within the pockets, as well as increase the overall stability of the cover.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn in view of Gschwend and Jordan as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (WO 2010/104590).
Regarding Claim 19, Vaughn as modified teaches the reinforced flowerpot cover of claim 15.
Vaughn fails to disclose wherein the bag is formed of a polyester material.
However, Nelson teaches a plant container wherein the bag (container 100 with material 102) is formed of a polyester material (“the breathable material 102 is a synthetic polymer, such as polypropylene, polyester, polyethylene and polyamides.” Page 9 lines 15-16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bag of Vaughn, to be polyester as taught by Nelson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the cover is durable while remaining cost effective, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 12 that the references of Gschwend (CH 287162) fails to disclose the newly added limitation of “wherein the vertical insert (54) includes a top end (64) sized and shaped to insert into and be retained within one of the one or more pockets (46) when engaged with and supported by the interior surface (26) of the bag (20) on at least one side.” However, the prior art of Gschwend is not being used to teach that limitation. Primary reference Vaughn teaches that limitation, since the insert is touching the interior surface of the bag, then both the bag and the insert are supporting one another through force. Additionally Gschwend teaches the newly added limitation pertaining to the notches in the bottom insert, as discussed in the currently presented rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642